If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Re: Nevada QUIT honoring the AZ CCW (again)?

Yes Bob this is true for now.

This was a heavy handed response to AZ dropping the shooting requirements & allowing applicants to pass online training courses. AZ shares in part of the issue, as they should have issued these "online" / no range time CCW's as a Class "B" or some other designation. That way states like NV could say "we don't honor class b AZ permits, but the standard ones (classroom / ranget time) are still fine. My training was equal to or more difficult to what most NV permit holders take. Yet that is suddenly not good enough for NV?

Last edited by FreeInAZ; 04-28-2013 at 10:42 PM.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world" by Mahatma Gandhi

AZ shares in part of the issue, as they should have issued these "online" / no range time CCW's as a Class "B" or some other designation.

The issue is not how to make Arizona's laws more restrictive to conform to other states' laws but for other states, like Nevada, to work towards restoring the RIGHT to bear arms in their states. Years ago (thanks to AzCDL) Arizona law was changed to recognize ALL permits from all states.

Regarding the online courses. Check out ARS 13-3112(N) for what is accepted.

After Constitutional Carry was passed, Arizona CCW law now mirrors Florida law which has been copied by several other states. Non-governmental agency approved courses must be taught by NRA instructors. NRA forbids online courses (I'm an NRA instructor). If someone offers and online course and states they are an NRA instructor, they are violating NRA policy. This violates ARS 13-3102(N).

The issue is not how to make Arizona's laws more restrictive to conform to other states' laws but for other states, like Nevada, to work towards restoring the RIGHT to bear arms in their states. ...

After Constitutional Carry was passed, Arizona CCW law now mirrors Florida law which has been copied by several other states. Non-governmental agency approved courses must be taught by NRA instructors. NRA forbids online courses (I'm an NRA instructor). If someone offers and online course and states they are an NRA instructor, they are violating NRA policy. ...

Does NRA forbid its instructors from conducting a non-NRA course online? I don't do online courses, but I wouldn't think so. CCW-specific courses, in most states, are not "NRA courses," and we instructors are allowed to advertise that a course is being taught by an NRA-certified instructor as long as we put equal emphasis on the fact that the course is "Not an NRA-Approved Course." If we are not advertising that the instructor is NRA-certified, then the caveat is unnecessary. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I agree with wanting Constitutional Carry here as well, but as for Nevada's right to bear arms, NV has less regulation on OC than AZ does.

Last edited by MAC702; 04-29-2013 at 03:36 PM.

"It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

Does NRA forbid its instructors from conducting a non-NRA course online? I don't do online courses, but I wouldn't think so. CCW-specific courses, in most states, are not "NRA courses," and we instructors are allowed to advertise that a course is being taught by an NRA-certified instructor as long as we put equal emphasis on the fact that the course is "Not an NRA-Approved Course." If we are not advertising that the instructor is NRA-certified, then the caveat is unnecessary. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Courses you teach that don't hint of being associated with the NRA are fine. And it looks like if you associate your NRA credentials with a legitimate course, you are in the clear.

Here's a quote from the official NRA policy: "If NRA’s name or your NRA credentials are associated with a course, you must, among other things, actually work with the students, face-to-face, to allow you to evaluate whether they perform the safe operation of a firearm, and shoot with a sufficient level of skill. This policy applies to any course which might result in issuing any certificate that bears the title of NRA Certified Instructor, or if the course is associated in any way whatsoever with a certification issued by the NRA."

The policy specifically outlaws online courses: "Under no circumstances may NRA’s name or your NRA credentials be associated with any online firearms training course."

Which brings us back to someone advertising an online CCW course. If they don't mention they are an NRA instructor, I don't see how it complies with ARS 13-3112, but DPS doesn't seem to care. And if they do mention they are an NRA instructor, that violates NRA policy which means to me that the course is not in compliance with ARS 13-3112, but then again, DPS doesn't seem to care.

Re: Nevada QUIT honoring the AZ CCW (again)?

Fred - I understand your points. However it "seems" that the new "nintendo or nice dinner out" ccw issued by DPS are simply a revenue stream & not much ado about rights to those in AZ gov. Let's be honest - a good portion of the folks that are getting the new online ccw are not worried about reciprocity, they simply want to discreetly carry in places that sell alcohol for consumption by the glass. They can do so now and I'm happy for them. I am not happy that I have lost some of my carry options when visiting our property in NV, that I enjoyed just a short time ago do to the poor implimentation/execution by AZ law makers & DPS. Just as DPS hoped they are flooded with new applicants and wait times are now varying between 8-12 weeks. Business is good for them as of late.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world" by Mahatma Gandhi

...official NRA policy: "If NRA’s name or your NRA credentials are associated with a course, you must, among other things, actually work with the students, face-to-face, to allow you to evaluate whether they perform the safe operation of a firearm, and shoot with a sufficient level of skill. This policy applies to any course which might result in issuing any certificate that bears the title of NRA Certified Instructor, or if the course is associated in any way whatsoever with a certification issued by the NRA."

The policy specifically outlaws online courses: "Under no circumstances may NRA’s name or your NRA credentials be associated with any online firearms training course."

Which brings us back to someone advertising an online CCW course. If they don't mention they are an NRA instructor, I don't see how it complies with ARS 13-3112, but DPS doesn't seem to care. And if they do mention they are an NRA instructor, that violates NRA policy which means to me that the course is not in compliance with ARS 13-3112, but then again, DPS doesn't seem to care...

I think you are absolutely correct on this!

Last edited by MAC702; 04-29-2013 at 07:28 PM.

"It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

Fred - I understand your points. However it "seems" that the new "nintendo or nice dinner out" ccw issued by DPS are simply a revenue stream & not much ado about rights to those in AZ gov. Let's be honest - a good portion of the folks that are getting the new online ccw are not worried about reciprocity, they simply want to discreetly carry in places that sell alcohol for consumption by the glass. They can do so now and I'm happy for them. I am not happy that I have lost some of my carry options when visiting our property in NV, that I enjoyed just a short time ago do to the poor implimentation/execution by AZ law makers & DPS. Just as DPS hoped they are flooded with new applicants and wait times are now varying between 8-12 weeks. Business is good for them as of late.

DPS didn't figure on an increase in permits, and after Constitutional Carry gutted much of their CCW processing staff. After a brief dip (I monitor this) in permit applications, they started to rise and now more are coming in than they can handle.

Please keep in mind that Nevada recognizing ANY permits is relatively new and they recognized Arizona's for the first time in 2010, before Constitutional Carry was passed. At the time, I figured just like with Utah and Florida, that Nevada would rescind the recognition. Utah had made no change to their CCW process but Nevada dropped them. Florida, which Arizona's permit is now modeled after was only rescinded because Florida changed to a 7 year permit, not because of the underlying law (again, which Arizona law mirrors).

And, like I mentioned earlier, it's not Arizona's duty to make our laws more restrictive for the hope that Nevada will honor our permits. The problem lies with Nevada - they need to honor the right to bear arms. Nevada recognition of other states permits is not based on legislation. It's based on the whim of the Nevada Sheriff's association which has carte blanche to make the rules. The only remedy is for the Nevada legislature, like Arizona's, to change law to recognize other state's permits.

Long before the brief 2 year period that Nevada blessed us with recognition, I have held a Nevada permit. I prefer to go through the hassles of renewing (requires a visit to Nevada to take another course for each renewal) than to push to make Arizona less free for the convenience of one state's reciprocity. It's what Ben Franklin warned about in his quote about sacrificing liberty for safety.

Re: Nevada QUIT honoring the AZ CCW (again)?

@Fred - I get it, always have. We agree. I think my "idea" would not have posed any more restrictions on any one though and made resiprocity issues less likely for those who don't want the hassles you currently go through. It's a moot point anyways, what's done is done. Not against any training ever when it comes to firearms. But again, training should not be mandated to be able to protect ones own life or others. The founders knew this. And right now back at you with quotes from Madison - " a government that does not trust its law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, is itself unworthy of trust." and this gem "The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse."

Last edited by FreeInAZ; 04-29-2013 at 08:47 PM.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world" by Mahatma Gandhi